After a recent Los Angeles Times editorial used the platform of the evolutionists versus creationists debate to leap into an excoriating criticism of three Republican candidates who professed faith in Christianity, the top three Democrat candidates on June 4 stood in the public limelight and offered their testimonies to YAHWEH — The Almighty who the LA Times' editors apparently believe is merely a figment of the imagination of more than a billion people around the world.
Presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton testified during a forum on June 4 — hosted by Sojourners/Call to Renewal — it was her faith in God (YAHWEH) that got her through her marital troubles. Prayers sustained her, she recalled. John Edwards admitted he was a sinner and sinned daily — and prayers also sustained him through his son's death in 1996 and his wife's battle with cancer. Still, despite his "deep and abiding love for Lord, Jesus Christ," Edwards believes the United States ought not be considered a Christian nation.
Barack Obama preferred to view the issues pertaining to war in terms of just and unjust rather than a perspective of good versus evil, which he believes would otherwise lend itself to a less critical view of the actions of our own nation.
But with all three of the Democrats candidates having an abiding belief and faith in an invisible God, and all three of the top Republican candidates joining them in that belief, it appears that the LA Times — which had its say about such silly notions of electing leaders who profess profound preference for policies rooted in revelations from the bible — is devoid of a single legitimate religion-free candidate to endorse.
Surely, the position of the LA Times editorial board — as expressed less than two weeks ago regarding three candidates who are professing Christians — also applies equally to Clinton, Edwards and Obama, each of whom declared their faith in Jesus of Nazareth to the nation today. The Times' editors criticized only the Republican candidates as unfit for leadership of this nation by stating, "Three men seeking to lead the last superpower on Earth reject the scientific consensus on cosmology, thermonuclear dynamics, geology and biology, believing instead that Bamm-Bamm and Dino played together."
With all of the presidential candidates declaring a love for Jesus Christ and dependency upon faith in God and daily prayers for strength and guidance, in whom will the LA Times editors place their trust? Surely the coined phrase placed upon the nation's currency is meaningless to such evolved intellects in Los Angeles. So how then can any editor at the LA Times worth his paycheck find solace in an endorsement of any candidate that bends his knee to an invisible God?
And let's not pretend that any of these candidates subscribe to both the notion of creation as well as the science of evolution. The two are not compatible. One will be accepted whole and the other challenged in whole or part, but Christianity — and the words and deeds of Jesus Himself — contains far too many contradictions to the theory of evolution for any Christian to walk that line for too long without falling onto one side or the other.
It is indeed a conundrum for the LA Times editors. After all, the notion that one could potentially believe in God and have faith in Jesus yet also embrace evolution science wholeheartedly is a fence that has never been walked successfully.
Consider the notion that Jesus claimed He was with God before the world began and that God granted Him dominion over all created things. The idea that everything was "created" sort of puts a crimp in the scientific theory of evolution, which begins with an obscure origin that some believe was a bang billions of years ago. But that's just the beginning of the obstacles between evolution faith and Christian faith. Jesus claimed that mankind is doomed to a sentence of death of both body and soul for disobeying God, yet through His sacrifice of innocent sinless blood on behalf of our sins, we have an opportunity to be saved from the wrath of God … if we accept Him as Savior and Lord of our lives. That surely sounds like a load of nonsense to an evolutionist, who is willing to wager his life (and soul) that Christians are a bit wacky with the whole lake of fire stuff.
Then there is the notion of evil, as personified by Satan, the devil, demons and those who oppose God. Where does all of that fit into evolution? And did angels ever roam the earth and have their way with daughters of men? Did Jesus raise the dead, walk on water and instantly heal leprosy and other diseases? How are such things possible, if evolutionists are right and man evolved over millions of years, adjusting according to survival of the fittest?
And what about Moses? Are the Jews also unfit for leadership in America because they fervently believe that Moses had a personal audience with God and acted as His go-between with Pharoah? How does the evolutionist explain the parting of the Red Sea or even the Great Flood in Noahs' day? Did the prophet Jonah really spend three days and nights in the belly of a great fish?
Evolution seeks to explain how things came into being but falls woefully short, while tossing sharp criticism at those who place their faith in biblical revelations. It seeks to set itself apart due to particular processes through which it divines information, rather than mere faith in ancient texts.
Unfortunately, evolutionists too often fail to examine their own beliefs with the same critical eye cast upon Christians, Jews, Muslims and others. While they look down their noses upon the faithful, they forget that they also have placed a lot of faith in processes that are fallible. The generation of evolutionists today do not believe the same things as the ones before it. And as science evolves, to discover what it thought it knew yesterday was wrong, a new generation will place its faith in a newly evolved process claiming it is the best that can be done. Such reason is understandable, but the limits of man's knowledge does not create fact or truth. It merely creates "belief." Thus, the LA Times editors are as trusting in the texts of evolution science books as Christians are in the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.
The difference is that Christians need not change their perspectives and beliefs with the shifting sands of time or the gale force winds that blow away old science textbooks with every passing generation. It would be intellectually honest for evolutionists to admit that they, too, have faith in things unseen and theories unproven.
The religious willingly admit that underneath all the reasoning and rationale that underscores our thinking, there is a foundation of faith that is the core of our being and the center of our lives. It guides us, nurtures us and fuels us. It answers questions of life, love, relationships, good and evil that cannot otherwise be rationally explained by any field of science. Our faith in God provides us a guidepost that leads us through life, teaching us to do good, treating others as we would have them treat us, forgiving transgressions easily, and thinking of others above ourselves.
Science would do well to learn from Jesus rather than crucify His followers. After all, if Jesus is truly King of Kings and Lord of Lords — and really did conquer death and plans to return in glory — those who proclaim that anyone who believes in such silliness isn't fit to lead a democratic society of diverse peoples may someday wish they were part of a society of believers who worship a Monarch.
Evolution science cannot respond adequately to all of the claims made by Jesus, nor explain the numerous acts by God chronicled in the bible. After all, evolution would deny that donkeys can talk, the wind and sea respond to the commands of one man, and that both angels and demons exist and interact among men. Thus, if the theory of evolution is taught as an accepted fact, then Christianity, Judaism and other world religions must be denied as true.
At the end of the day, evolution theory and Christianity are not completely compatible. That is not to say that parts of each cannot be accepted across the lines of belief, but neither side can accept the other in totality. And in a nation comprised of a majority Christian population, the leaders of our nation who desire the votes of faithful Christians will either pretend to be such themselves or they actually are. In either case, they will likely attract the ire of the editors at the LA Times.
Of course, if the LA Times' criticism of Christian creationists is correct, and Jesus Christ is wrong, Judgment Day is nothing to fear and the biggest problem they will have is deciding which wacky Christian to support for president in '08.Powered by Sidelines